Robert Treat wrote:
>
> This is interesting because I just read this article
> (http://www.sdtimes.com/cols/middlewatch.htm) that talks about how
> postgresql is at a disadvantage compared to other open source databases
> because it is produced under a BSD license, and won't have enough
> license revenue to sustain long term viability of postgresql inc, the
> main company behind postgresql.
It's seems to be a very much MySQL propaganda style article, with the
author pushing his preferred database without checking reality for
facts.
A *lot* of companies choose PostgreSQL, and a significant number of them
are doing so because the BSD license makes it easy for them to start.
GPL licensed stuff has a "enforced sharing" mindset attached with it
that a lot of companies seem to be unhappy about using, whereas BSD
licensed stuff can be used by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and is more
able to be viewed as "infrastructure".
My view on this is that when someone adds good code to a BSD licensed
project, they've just raised the bar by that much for *everyone*
worldwide, permanently.
It's whether or not *everyone* worldwide knows about it is the dilemma.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
> Robert Treat
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
